One God, Three Persons

[blhowes]

I rarely post in this forum. Sometimes I look at the threads and wonder what you guys are talking about...then I read the threads and wonder what you guys are talking about...

Anywho, this question is mainly for those who have debated unbelievers before, but others are welcome to chime in as well. I was reading the Athanasian Creed, which does an excellent articulating the trinity and the divinity of Christ. As I was reading...

Now the catholic faith is that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is One

...it just struck me that this would be a challenge to explain to a person who only uses logic and the scientific-method type mentality to arrive at conclusions. Have any of your ever debated this truth with an unbeliever? How'd you explain the difference between this and panthiestic religions?

 

[alwaysreforming]

I don't recall ever speaking about this with an unbeliever, but I have had plenty of conversations with other Christians about it.

I like what Hank Hanegraff says, "Its one WHAT, but three WHO's."

Basically, in answer to your question, it addresses the fact that this is no contradiction in logic, so if your non-believer wants to go by strictly logical standards (praise God for someone who wants to think correctly), then you can show him its no contradiction.

Since we're talking about one NATURE or ESSENCE, we are not contradicting ourselves by our belief in three PERSONS. Now I know this doesn't correlate with human experience, to have more than one person of one nature; but it doesn't necessarily show a contradiction in logic to say so. It would only be contradictory to say there is one PERSON, and there are three PERSONS; or one NATURE and three NATURES.

Since the categories are different (PERSON and NATURE), we need to keep that distinction in mind and make sure the unbeliever is on the same page with us.

And this also raises the obvious next question, about Jesus having two NATURES, but I probably wouldn't want to get into that with an unbeliever just yet. :bigsmile:

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by alwaysreforming
I like what Hank Hanegraff says, "Its one WHAT, but three WHO's."
<snip>
Since the categories are different (PERSON and NATURE), we need to keep that distinction in mind and make sure the unbeliever is on the same page with us.

Christopher,
Thanks for your response. This is really some cool stuff to think about. What you say makes sense.

Pondering what you said,
Bob

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by alwaysreforming
I like what Hank Hanegraff says, "Its one WHAT, but three WHO's."

To muddy the waters a bit and hopfully not hijack the thread...

Is it proper to categorize God as a "WHAT"? Is that an impersonal abstraction? Are not all of God's attributes held in infinite perfection whereas not one is considered more ultimate? If so, then isn't God's Personhood just as ultimate as His holiness?

I guess what I'm dancing around is Van Til's postulate that God is a Person. The whole One Person - Three Person can of worms...

Warm? Cold?...I haven't read much on this - can anyone else comment and add some light to this heat?

And yes I'm aware that the WSC asks: "What is God?".

 

[alwaysreforming]

Chris,

I wouldn't go so far as to say that one should "categorize God as a WHAT." In fact, it seems strange to say "categorizing" God at all. We're basically asking two questions ABOUT God, and they take two different answers: "Who is God?" is one question; "What is God?" is another question.

So I think when we're talking about "categorizing", what we're really talking about is "categorizing our thinking."

So I think when you mention, "One person-Three persons" at the end of your post, you're confusing categories and such a dilemma does not exist because no one is postulating "One person = Three persons", unless I did not follow you properly.

And I'm not sure if the "Personhood" of God can be equated to being just one His attributes, such as "Holiness". I'm not quite clear on this, but I would think "personhood" is not a "qualifier" of God in the same way his other attributes are; but maybe I'm wrong. My thinking really doesn't go much deeper than what I've already described here.

... and I now conceed to a smarter person to pick up the ball and run with it from here...

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by crhoades

Originally posted by alwaysreforming
I like what Hank Hanegraff says, "Its one WHAT, but three WHO's."

To muddy the waters a bit and hopfully not hijack the thread...

Is it proper to categorize God as a "WHAT"? Is that an impersonal abstraction? Are not all of God's attributes held in infinite perfection whereas not one is considered more ultimate? If so, then isn't God's Personhood just as ultimate as His holiness?

I guess what I'm dancing around is Van Til's postulate that God is a Person. The whole One Person - Three Person can of worms...

Warm? Cold?...I haven't read much on this - can anyone else comment and add some light to this heat?

And yes I'm aware that the WSC asks: "What is God?".

Chris,

I think the problem here is one of insufficiency of language. We have no experience (besides God) for anything that is being and yet not only one person. So "what" seems a bit... sacraligious.

But we need to think of God as being beyond "person." God is greater than that, because God is three Persons. A similar quandry is aised by Christ's Person, because we have no other experience with a dual nature.

This is the area where (as a Van Tillian) I hvae the most difficulty with Van Til. I have to admit though that for my part, most Clarkians try and use some difficult statements by Van Til about matters very difficult for anyone to express clearly to "charge" him, and I don't like that.

My initial recommendation is that you should find the tape or two in the ST1 stuff that Doug Kelly did on the Trinity. It is pure gold.

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
My initial recommendation is that you should find the tape or two in the ST1 stuff that Doug Kelly did on the Trinity. It is pure gold.

Fred,
Is this what you're referring to?

(never mind - broken links)

[Edited on 12-2-2005 by blhowes]

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by fredtgrecoMy initial recommendation is that you should find the tape or two in the ST1 stuff that Doug Kelly did on the Trinity. It is pure gold.

Working on it...working on it.

I've listened to the prolegomena part. I'm trying to pace listening to the lectures in the sys class with our study of the confession. Right now we are on Ch. 1 so I'm trying to stay focused. I purchased the Intro to Systematics class by Richard Gaffin that is 23 cds and they are superb as well.

Listening to Doug Kelley feels like getting taught theology by George W. Bush. I found myself chuckling at a couple of points!

 

[JohnV]

Bob:

I don't usually talk to people beyond their interest level. That is, if they aren't really interested in God, then they are really just interested in debate; and I don't usually want to do that with others when I'm trying to talk to them about the truth of the God's Word.

Dr. Schaeffer noted that 'pantheism' is really a cheating word. It suggests a theism, a personal god ( i.e., a god who is person ), but really is not that at all. He calls it pan-everythingism. So to talk to a pan-everythingist would intrinsically involve first talking about a personal God, before talking about a trinitarian God.

I'm not sure what you mean by "scientific-method type mentality". Each discipline carries a philosophy of some sort. And each philosophy must explain the mystery of unity in diversity, the one and the many. When I do talk to people about these things, I may not talk specifically about these things, but they nevertheless form the basis of what I do say to them. In anything they propose, I just try to call them to reason things out; not necessarily to prove God to them, but to prove to them that they are not really being honest with themselves. Hopefully the witness of the Spirit within them brings them to want the truth of that witness, the hope that it gives. And then, when God reveals Himself to them, then they are also open to the great mysteries that God tells us of Himself, believing them because God says they are so.

We live in such a world, that openness to the gospel in our immediate surroundings is not that common anymore. We have too much wealth, not enough need; so we need God less, and don't really need to confront our own sins. The hardest people to reach with the gospel are sometimes those who already have the Bible, but don't need any Biblical theology to muddle up their perceived self-justifications.

Quite often, then, to launch into doctrines of the trinity, such as with Jehovah's Witnesses, is too much too soon. It is hard enough to spring the Athanasian Creed on beginning Christians, much less unbelievers. I would keep that in my pocket until people are ready for it. The Bible says so, and that should be good enough until then. They will read and appreciate the Athanasian Creed when they are ready.

Children of believers are different. The Athanasian Creed should be taught to children before they do profession of faith.

Well, that's what I think about this. Just a few thoughts to think about.